Subsection (1) above shall not affect the offence of conspiracy at common law if and in so far as it may be committed by entering into an agreement to engage in conduct which—

(a)tends to corrupt public morals or outrages public decency; but

(b)would not amount to or involve the commission of an offence if carried out by a single person otherwise than in pursuance of an agreement.

Anything “consensual” goes, quite a powerful label.

We could technically make online porn illegal over night, since it’s cinematographic and children frequently view it, which is not only grooming but corrupting.

(3)In section 2 of that Act after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—

“(4A)Without prejudice to subsection (4) above, a person shall not be proceeded against for an offence at common law—

(a)in respect of a cinematograph exhibition or anything said or done in the course of a cinematograph exhibition, where it is of the essence of the common law offence that the exhibition or, as the case may be, what was said or done was obscene, indecent, offensive, disgusting or injurious to morality; or

(b)in respect of an agreement to give a cinematograph exhibition or to cause anything to be said or done in the course of such an exhibition where the common law offence consists of conspiring to corrupt public morals or to do any act contrary to public morals or decency.”

(4)At the end of section 2 of that Act there shall be added the following subsection:—

“(7)In this section ” cinematograph exhibition ” means an exhibition of moving pictures produced on a screen by means which include the projection of light.”

(5)In section 3 of that Act (which among other things makes provision for the forfeiture of obscene articles kept for publication for gain) at the beginning of subsection (3) there shall be inserted the words

“Subject to subsection (3A) of this section”and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection:—

“(3A)Without prejudice to the duty of a court to make an order for the forfeiture of an article where section 1(4) of the Obscene Publications Act 1964 applies (orders made on conviction), in a case where by virtue of subsection (3A) of section 2 of this Act proceedings under the said section 2 for having an article for publication for gain could not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, no order for the forfeiture of the article shall be made under this section unless the warrant under which the article was seized was issued on an information laid by or on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”

Abolition of censorship of the theatre

1Abolition of censorship of the theatre.

(1)The M1Theatres Act 1843 is hereby repealed; and none of the powers which were exercisable thereunder by the Lord Chamberlain of Her Majesty’s Household shall be exercisable by or on behalf of Her Majesty by virtue of Her royal prerogative.

(2)[F1In granting, renewing or transferring any licence under this Act for the use of any premises for the public performance of plays or in varying any of the terms, conditions or restrictions on or subject to which any such licence is held, the licensing authority shall not have power to impose any term, condition or restriction as to the nature of the plays which may be performed under the licence or as to the manner of performing plays thereunder:

Provided that nothing in this subsection shall prevent a licensing authority from imposing any term, condition or restriction which they consider necessary in the interests of physical safety or health or any condition regulating or prohibiting the giving of an exhibition, demonstration or performance of hypnotism within the meaning of the M2Hypnotism Act 1952.]

Health and Safety overtook the concern for public morality.
That’s why actors can get naked and perform sexual acts in a play.

There’s our own Race Relations statute (we never used to need one….) and hate speech was only written in once the original protection of the natives, White Christians, was written out.

“In other words, to the extent that a high IQ individual comes from a genetically-relatively-intelligence-inbreeding caste or class; there is no regression to the mean.”

Galton never wrote it that way, the guy who invented both IQ (originally) and regression as a concept.

It was twisted that way but actually it doesn’t apply to high IQ, only to the slightly above-average IQ, with a standard deviation or two. The fully top-tier have a common cause – low genetic load, which must be inherited by the offspring since 1. it is recessive and 2. both parents have it. There is a similar heritability with true retardation but it isn’t PC to say so. Regression to the mean apply to normative groups, anything that deserves separate categories must be conforming to different assumptions and ‘rules’. e.g. we all live in the population but there is a select sample of us with green eyes, can we assume the global melanin levels (brown) apply to this sample?

Samples are not populations. I repeat, samples are not populations.
False reports of high IQ will regress to the mean, on the other hand. Scientism is full of false reports.

“The modern world depends on a spiritual-Christian awakening – both men and women are necessary; but it cannot happen without women.”

At the moment, the things he lists are not choices, they are options after men have made the choices (to settle down, marry, reproduce), they are largely male economic decisions e.g. to propose. The men I’ve asked are in the same position as the women, “I would like to, one day, but I can’t afford to (now)”.

We’ve been whipped, all of us, into productivity, and out of re-productivity.
Celebrating bachelors in the Baby Boomer Bond-era was the beginning of the end. How many of those eventually got married (by which I mean, stayed married, faithfully)? The rise of spinsters came after the playboy bachelor celebration, women followed men into anti-natal decisions.

All male role models have been a let-down (degenerate) or defined by their women (Arthur).
America was healthy in the times its role model was Lady Liberty more than Uncle Sam.
Male role models appear to be the harbinger of Martian decision-making, reckless and stupid, an extreme of hasty but courageous.
The EU has Captain Euro. It’s a trend.
Britain’s glory days were presaged by Elizabeth I and Britannia.
Boats are female, nations are typically female too. It’s probably the rich soil Goddess versus fertile sky God dynamic. War heroes and industrialists are typically male. Beauties and artists skew feminine.
There is a pattern to the successful society, but what few know is that the prototypic female of plenty was Ceres. Sometimes, as in Britannia, the female also has traces of Athene. This is the only model of female power that worked, alongside possibly Merlin (a positive Saturn) or Jupiter. A young male role model or one with a single purpose (destructive, Uncle Sam) leads to disaster.
Role models of family-centred societies must be hearth-like and probably virginal, at least maternal. Classically a female domain, but I wouldn’t object to male variations e.g. like a male nurse, Apollo. Women seem to be more about preserving rights (to this day, but the wrong ‘rights’) whereas men are, as historically expected, the destructive, who charge in and take or destroy good systems rather than repairing them (handiwork, homework).
Alexander the Great was never a role model.

“So, from this experience, I learned the futility of arguing about evidence when it comes to matters of fundamental assumptions – of metaphysics. If you assume that group differences are plausible – there is ample, high quality of evidence consistent with such assumptions. But if you assume that there are no such differences – then it is an easy matter to explain-away any and every piece of apparent evidence, and to dismiss the arguments of those who oppose you.”

“I’m a millennial, metaphorically I feel the moral corruption of my generation, whispering to me that I should just fuck bitchez and leave well enough alone, that I’ll never succed as a tradionalist, that I’ve fucked enough bitchez and can’t possibly marry, it’s hypocritical of me to support traditional marriage or heteronormativity. If I believed in demons, I would say the sexual immorality we were all but taught in school by the boomers is one.

I know that other millennials would be with us if they didn’t have easy access to genz pussy on tinder, and others would be with us if they didn’t see ideas as separate from their personal lives / see the path of redemption as hypocrisy.”

The degeneracy isn’t just killing people individually, it’s killing their futures collectively.
Enabled by people who detest them as Straight, White Males.
Now, what do you offer a Straight White Male to destroy himself, since you can’t do it yourself?
The Sexual Revolution. It ruined men.
Until that problem is addressed and acknowledged and well-known, the exploitation of man’s greatest weakness, then all the crying about universal suffrage is a red herring. There isn’t a single “right-wing” man I’ve seen online that isn’t as “Sex Positive” as the most virulent SJW. That’s why we’ve lost. Bacchus isn’t Jesus, it’s Satanic.

Postmodernism, any modernism, can only be defeated by a return to tradition, but the men are too weak.
They’re all too weak now.

From thinking with their dicks, worse than any case of PMS.
PMS never killed a race.

12 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything.13 You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[b]17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.[c]

If degenerate, if r-selected, not right-wing!

18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?

“But most books, especially most new books, are not just not-very-good but are very-bad-indeed – not merely in terms of being badly written, but by having bad topics, promoting bad attitudes, encouraging immorality and attacking virtue.”

Little Emperor Syndrome is genetic. I never met a brat without brat parents.

Great point, but reverence for marriage itself is what we’re aiming at. It isn’t about any individual being ‘happ-y’, like every divorcee ever crows, humans aren’t like dogs, happiness doesn’t happen – it’s a useful excuse to do whatever they want in the moment, usually swinging, the true origin of hookup culture. Liberals started acting like everything was all ‘for the children’ the moment they wanted access to the neophyte brains of the conservative’s children. A behaviourist once said ‘give me the boy at 7 and I’ll give you the man’. You give a liberal your kids from 3-18… and they’re a drooling moron.

Once the ‘consenting adults’ excuse to morality doesn’t apply, they have NOTHING.